I’ve only just found this, and had never heard of it before. It appears that the island of Nantucket might have been the first part of the United States to actually secede from the Union.
At first glance it seemed like Nantucket was simply rebelling. But then I saw this:
"Nantucket also agreed not to pay any taxes to the federal or state government."
Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have Power
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and
proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing
Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United
States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Those foregoing powers are enumerated previously in the same Section 8.
(emphasis mine)
Under Article II of the Constitution, the president
is responsible for the execution and enforcement
of the laws created by Congress. Fifteen executive
departments — each led by an appointed member
of the President’s Cabinet – carry out the day-to-day
administration of the federal government.
They are joined in this by other executive
agencies such as the CIA and Environmental
Protection Agency, the heads of which are not
part of the Cabinet, but who are under the full
authority of the President. The President also
appoints the heads of more than 50 independent
federal commissions, such as the Federal
Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange
Commission, as well as federal judges,
ambassadors, and other federal offices. The
Executive Office of the President (EOP)
consists of the immediate staff to the President,
along with entities such as the Office of
Management and Budget and the Office of the
United States Trade Representative.
Article II Section 2 (emphasis mine)
The President shall be Commander in Chief of
the Army and Navy of the United States, and of
the Militia of the several States, when called into
the actual Service of the United States; he may
require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal
Officer in each of the executive Departments,
upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their
respective Offices, and he shall have Power
to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences
against the United States, except in Cases of
Impeachment.
(emphasis mine)
“The Constitution neither establishes administrative
agencies nor explicitly prescribes the manner by
which they may be created.** Even so, the Supreme
Court has generally recognized that Congress has
broad constitutional authority to establish
and shape the federal bureaucracy. Congress
may use its Article I lawmaking powers to
create federal agencies and individual offices
within those agencies, design agencies’ basic
structures and operations, and prescribe,
subject to certain constitutional limitations,
how those holding agency offices are appointed
and removed. Congress also may enumerate
the powers, duties, and functions to be exercised
by agencies, as well as directly counteract,
through later legislation, certain agency actions
implementing delegated authority.”
What all this appears to say is that the Constitution has no enumerated power to establish administrative agencies, the heads of which may be required to give their opinion, in writing, to the president, regarding all laws which have been created by Congress to support the powers that are enumerated in the same Article II Section 8.
But if the Constitution does not enumerate a power to the government, then it should fall to the states, or to the people. But “…the Supreme Court has generally recognized that Congress has broad constitutional authority to establish and shape the federal bureaucracy.”
So, it seems that there is no constitutional basis for the creation of executive agencies of any kind, nor for the laws which fall under the purview of those agencies.
A PDF version of everycrsreport.com can be found here:
https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/2021-05-12_R45442_e34a620d03eb5880bbfc8d4e1a1803d034487826.pdf
Let us accept for the moment, as seems reasonable, that some executive agencies are permitted; why else would they be mentioned in Article I Section 8?
It is still the case that the government, in this case in the guise of Congress, is permitted only certain laws, to support the enumerated powers in Article I Section 8, those “…foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States…”, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
This is somewhat overlapping with the X amendment. Article I says “… or in any Department or Officer thereof”, but the tenth amendment specifically states that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, shall be vested in the states, except those prohibited to the states.
This effectively eliminates any power vested in “…any Department or Officer thereof” that has not already been enumerated in the constitution.
We are left with only certain executive agencies that are properly designated by the constitution. I would suggest that the following are permitted under the powers enumerated in Article I Section 8:
State Department
Treasury Department
IRS
Defense Department
Commerce Department
Immigration and Naturalization Service
U.S. Mint
Department of weights and measures
Secret Service, counterfeiting division
Patent office
Copyright office
Defense Department
Other executive agencies that would NOT be permitted would be things like:
Department of Education
Department of Agriculture
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Health and Human Services
Library of Congress
Social Security
Etc.
These are departments that are appear to be not constitutionally derived, and the laws and regulations promulgated under their jurisdiction might be fodder for the canon of NULLIFICATION.
The “natural right” of a political entity to secede has validity in international law.
(emphasis mine)
“The idea that the Colonies had a natural right to peacefully separate from England was a core principle of the American Revolution.”
https://www.americancivilwarforum.com/the-right-of-peaceful-separation-secession-a-core-principle-of-the-american-revolution-13383.html
“But when attention is turned to relatively
recent history - since the beginning of the
Netherlands Revolution in the late sixteenth
century - it becomes apparent that legal
science and a variety of socio-political
teachings have sought out and endeavored
to consolidate reasonable legal grounds for
separation and the creation of an independent
state in resolving such political problems.
These ideas acquired their validity through the
application of the right of secession in resolving
such political problems.”
THE RIGHT OF SECESSION AS A
HUMAN RIGHT*
Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 3 https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=annlsurvey
Many websites contain the following statement (emphasis mine):
“Two prominent political leaders in the Confederation,
John Jay of New York and Thomas Burke of North
Carolina believed that "the authority of the congress
rested on the prior acts of the several states, to which
the states gave their voluntary consent, and until those
obligations were fulfilled, neither nullification of the
authority of congress, exercising its due powers, nor
secession from the compact itself was consistent with
the terms of their original pledges.” ”
The source for the embedded quote is always given as “Political scientist David C. Hendrickson writes that…” This is footnoted as Hendrickson, David C., Peace Pact: The Lost World of the American Founding. (2003) ISBN 0-7006-1237-8
I have been unable to find a readily accessible copy of “Peace Pact” online.
Nor have I been able to find the original source that Hendrickson uses for this quote.
Until I am able to find the original source of this quote, I will have to assume its authenticity.
The statement was written to advance the idea that the states entered into the Articles of Confederation voluntarily, and that the Congress that wrote and accepted the Articles of Confederation was the same Congress that was now considering the a new Constitution. That is to say, both were considered to be the Congress of the United States of America, and it was the same “United States of America”. “The Articles of Confederation” is one of those “prior acts of the several states, to which the the states gave their voluntary consent…” and upon which “the authority of the congress rested…”
Because the Articles of Confederation were accepted voluntarily, the Congress considering the new Constitution had to act under the authority of the Articles. According to Article XIII of the Confederation, any alteration had to be approved unanimously:
“[T]he Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably
observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual;
nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in
any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress
of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the
legislatures of every State.”
On the other hand, Article VII of the proposed Constitution stated that it would become effective after ratification by a mere nine states, without unanimity:
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall
be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution
between the States so ratifying the Same.”
This presented a chicken-and-egg situation. Congress was at the time working under a rule of unanimity, and before Article VII of the new Constitution requiring ratification by only nine states could take effect it had to be ratified by all of the states.
In 1788 James Madison addressed this issue in Federalist No. 40.
In the final analysis, all 13 states did ratify the new constitution, so there was no conflict.
However, it explains why Article VII of the new constitution stated that (emphasis mine):
“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States,
shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this
Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”
Once the new Constitution was ratified the ideas of “perpetual union”, “secession”, and “nullification” were no where to be found.
In a letter from John Adams to Thomas Jefferson in 1815, Adams wrote:
“As to the history of the Revolution, my Ideas may be peculiar,
perhaps Singular. What do We mean by the Revolution? The War?
That was no part of the Revolution. It was only an Effect and
Consequence of it. The Revolution was in the Minds of the People,
and this was effected, from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen
Years before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The Records
of thirteen Legislatures, the Pamphlets, Newspapers in all the Colonies
ought be consulted, during that Period, to ascertain the Steps by which
the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the
Authority of Parliament over the Colonies. The Congress of 1774,
resembled in Some respects, tho’ I hope not in many, the Counsell
of Nice in Ecclesiastical History. It assembled the Priests from the
East and the West the North and the South, who compared Notes,
engaged in discussions and debates and formed Results, by one Vote
and by two Votes, which went out to the World as unanimous.”
John Jay wrote in Federalist Paper no. 2:
“It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent
America was not composed of detached and distant territories,
but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was
the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in
a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and
productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for
the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession
of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders,
as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world,
running at convenient distances, present them with highways for
the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual
transportation and exchange of their various commodities.”
“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence
has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united
people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the
same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same
principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs,
and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by
side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established
general liberty and independence. This country and this people
seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was
the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient
for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties,
should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien
sovereignties.”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed02.asp
John Quincy Adams, in 1839, addressed the issue of what happens, or should happen, if a people are no longer united in their hearts, culture, religion, etc., but rather by law:
“Thus stands the RIGHT. But the indissoluble link of union
between the people of the several states of this confederated
nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day
should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections
of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other;
when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference,
or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of
political association will not long hold together parties no longer
attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly
sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited
states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held
together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to
the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption
of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by
dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the
separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation
to the center.”
John Jay and John Adams deliberated on what makes us a united nation; John Quincy Adams opined as to what should happen if those things were no longer present in the people united.
John Jay and John Adams wrote of the things that were, essentially, pre-conditions for the establishment of a nation, and John Quincy Adams opined as to what should happen if those pre-conditions were no longer extant.
In other words, if the pre-conditions for union were later diminished or lost completely, disunion is the preferred action. As noted in a previous post, John Quincy Adams spoke of “secession”, and the desirability of secession under the proper conditions.
Well, it looks like this scenario is about to come true. This was posted at “NH Independence Drive media coverage”.
I know that cross-posting is not usually recommended, but in this case that post is of immediate interest to this particular topic, re: the scenario posted immediately above.
I found this interesting… the whole website… but the following quote fits so well into the current discussion.
Another important point is that the Constitution
does not vest the Supreme Court with the
authority to forbid secession. To quote James
Madison in the Virginia Resolutions,
[The Virginia] Assembly doth explicitly and
peremptorily declare, that it views the powers
of the federal government, as resulting from
the compact to which the states are parties;
as limited by the plain sense and intention of
the instrument constituting that compact; as
no farther valid than they are authorised by
the grants enumerated in that compact.[Emphasis added].
Suppose that Texas holds a referendum on
whether Texas should peacefully withdraw
from the Union, and Texans vote to leave.
This would be a sovereign act of a sovereign
State. If that happens, it is conceivable that
the Supreme Court might forbid Texas from
leaving. Do nine Supreme Court Justices
have the power to negate the will of the
Texan people? No, they do not. The States
have not vested them with this authority.
I was talking about this at work today, and it occurred to me that the argument can be made that we don’t need the tenth amendment.
The US Supreme Court would have original jurisdiction. Because nothing in the US Constitution permits the federal government to exert rights over questions of secession, the Supreme Court would probably refuse to hear the case. There would be no law, case law, etc. on which to base a decision. Since there is no lower court that has jurisdiction, and there is no higher court to send it to, they can’t send it anywhere. Since they don’t have jurisdiction, there could be no “court of last recourse”.
What would the federal government do without any kind of legal finding? I don’t know.
But note that this argument does not even mention the tenth (or for that matter the ninth) amendment. We do not have to refer to any part of the US Constitution except to say that no court has jurisdiction in the case, because it is not “enumerated” in the constitution.
Leif you’re invited to this weekly event if you’d like to speak about some of your thoughts above: " E-Join our NH Independence Town Hall Sundays 1p U.S. Eastern Time! No acct needed:
https://meet.jit.si/NHIndependenceTownHallMtgAudioTaped "
Thank you, I’m honored, but I must decline. I work Sundays 1-10, so I will be just beginning my shift.
Thank you again for the honor, I have seen/listened to at least one of these town hall meetings, so I am aware of what you are talking about.
A couple of additional notes: I have made my arguments based on the laws as I see them, both the US Constitution and 18 USC 115, but those have been buffered by others. I have tried in every case to post my sources/references.
I have done this because I was tired of accusations and charges without foundation, as we saw in a long and somewhat rambling half hour testimony before the committee hearing for CACR-32. I was appalled that no one could adequately argue against those accusations and charges.
So, I have tried to give us secessionists ammunition to counter the anti-secessionists, and to provide a firm footing for that ammunition.
It is really my fervent hope that all of you will pick up these ideas and begin spreading them yourselves. These ideas are not original with me, I just provided a particular perspective on them. Someone here asked if I had thought of sending the “detailed analysis” to all of the state legislators. My forte is really research and analysis. If you like the ideas, if you really understand and can explain these ideas to others, by all means, please do so. If you want to email all this, or any part of it, to the legislators, by all means, please do so.
I am a firm secessionist, but I cannot take credit for the ideas, only for my analysis of them.
I do, however, wonder what the politicians, lawyers, judges, etc. would think if they knew that I am one the lowest-paid associates at WalMart, and that my college background is in the areas of math, science, and computer science!
This post is just a prelude to further posts. As promised, I am working on a comprehensive history of secession/nullification in the United States.
If the question of secession ever reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, it seems likely that a history of secession in the United States might be in the interest of all concerned. But it is unlikely that an entire history would be presented to the court in session. Rather, it is more likely to be filed as an amicus brief.
While researching secession in the United States, I have found that secession has been considered for the entire history of the United States, even under the Articles of Consideration.
My research will be based on “Secession and Mathew Carey”, as an outline of the topic. I will then expand the relevant information from other sources. Just to give an idea of how long secession has been considered:
“Secessionist schemes were slow to gain
popular support. While they had been the
topic of conversation in Massachusetts since
1786, they did not gain traction until 1804.
After Jefferson purchased Louisiana Federalists
in both houses of Congress agreed that a crisis
was certain. Only Senators Simeon Olcott of
New Hampshire and John Quincy Adams from
Massachusetts disagreed.”
https://www.secessionandmathewcarey.org/pickering-griswold-promote-scheme-secession/
There were perhaps a dozen or more secession efforts considered in the first 30 years after the US Constitution was ratified.
From here on out, I intend to post links only to secondary sources of information. Any links to primary sources will be only by the name of source, followed by (AHDRtS) - American Historical Documents Related to Secession, another thread in the NHExit group. This will hopefully reduce double posting of the same link.
There are two topics brought up at the CACR-32 committee hearing that I have not yet addressed. They are not so much legal oriented as they are economic.
The first is whether or not social security benefits will still be paid after independence. This question was actually responded to by those in attendance, after the a certain rep made obviously false charges that in fact they would not be paid.
You might be able to continue making payments into the social security system if the company you work for is based outside New Hampshire, in the United States, if your company will cooperate with that.
Medicare might be a bigger problem. While it is likely that Medicare will still pay, they require that you go to medical personnel/facilities in their system, and I don’t know what would happen to personnel/facilities that might be decertified from the Medicare system after independence.
I receive social security monthly payments now, and I still pay into the Medicare system, they deduct my monthly payment directly from my monthly payment. I don’t know if there are any Medicare certified personnel/facilities in any foreign country. These are things to look into.
Interestingly, if you are taken out of the Medicare program, I wonder if that monthly payment would be deducted from the monthly social security checks. If not, that should mean your monthly social security checks would increase by the amount of the Medicare deduction.
You can find links to annual social security statistics, by state, here:
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/oasdi_sc/
The other topic that is brought up frequently is how much in taxes we would NOT have to pay to Washington. Federal revenues collected, by state, can be found here:
The following website discusses the idea that the U.S. constitution was explicitly a document of “secession” from the union detailed in the Articles of Confederation.
In the process of researching the earliest American secession from Britain, I found this short video. I’m still writing the written narrative, but I thought this video was interesting. It will take much longer to read the written narrative than to watch this video, but will also include many more details.
Why does the federal government have so much power? How might that interfere with interpreting the 10th amendment in favor of secession? The article addresses the question of “enumerated powers”.
Take a look at this article, which explains how the government got limitless power, and why the supreme court nearly always sides with the federal government.
A thought —
What would happen if the state of New Hampshire changed in such a way that they would not, today, be admitted as a new state? Would the United States congress (they’re the ones that have to admit a new state) rescind their statehood?
How would they react to such a situation?
So, it’s been a couple of weeks… I have been trying to get an idea of the causes of secession/independence in colonial America - what would cause the colonies to desire independence from England? It’s not as simple as it might first appear.
In fact, the origins seem to be as early as the English Civil War beginning in 1642. Relations between the colonies and England were strained, encouraging the colonies to open trade relations with the Dutch and French.
Later it was the availability of Dutch tea at a much lower price to the colonies, the availability of molasses from the French West Indies at a much lower price, the French and Indian Wars, and the desire of England to regain control of it’s colonies all contributed to an overreach of English power in the colonies.
The trade problems were largely a result of the English economic tradition of mercantilism. The Navigation Acts were an attempt to consolidate the power and authority of England over all aspects of the colonies.
The colonies had originally been granted the right to tax themselves, and to have their own elected officials, which the Intolerable Acts tried to deny them.
This is just the broadest of outlines, but several threads can be delineated.
Now, let’s look at the later constitution.
All of the same things that the colonists found objectionable were later incorporated as powers of the federal and state governments, with no power to the people, regardless of the rhetoric of both the constitution and the politicians.
The colonies were from the beginning self-governing, but the “supreme law of the land” took away the right to self-government of the states.
The people just simply exchanged the English king and parliament for the US constitution and the federal government.
Similar trade restrictions and the right to self-government were also at the root of the civil war, and of today’s secession movements.
I will expand on all of things in the weeks to come. Let me say for now that the people of the United States are less free today than at the time the colonists seceded from England.